A judge sides with the ACLU demanding the CIA produce an in camera review of all redacted documents relating to the destruction of evidence of torture. Just a simple question: why do you thnk the government destroyed tapes that show its allegedly non-torture of terror suspects? The same reason they were appalled when the Abu Ghraib photos leaked. If the public realized that Bush’s official policy was as bad as and even worse than what we saw at Abu Ghraib, he might have to face the fact of his war crimes.

There will be no argument from me here. It seems something near a certainty that fear of indictment for war crimes was the motivation for secrecy, for the destruction of these tapes (and we could assume other evidence as well), for the legal maneuvering evident in the re-do on the torture memos, and for the dismay at the public release of Abu Ghraib photographs.

But I’d add that there was also a political motivation. The Republican party and the conservative movement have been seriously damaged in public opinion because of the above. That potential consequence would have been a foremost consideration of Rove’s political office and others attending to the same concerns.

The right’s turn-to person for economic analysis. Notwithstanding that her degree is a Bachelor of English, of course. But this possibly makes her better suited for criticisms of Krugman’s analyses than, say, Joe the Plumber. Tough to say for sure.

So, how does she do when she gets jiggy with the writing thing?

In the Obama Era, it seems, we all pick our way through anxious lives that have something to do with software. Like Keanu Reeves’s Neo, we realize hour-to-hour that we are being manipulated by a system that has its own larger plan….

The administration seems almost to relish the sinister aspect of government-run health care. Otherwise it wouldn’t have created a position called “National Coordinator of Health Information Technology.” That’s a title worthy of Rhineheart, Neo’s boss, who tells him, “This company is one of the top software companies in the world because every single employee understands that they are part of a whole….”

Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama White House, is a nice, smart man. But Orszag’s facial features took on a resemblance to those of Agent Smith when he said recently: “There’s a lot of momentum behind health care.” Momentum: Something’s coming, so accept it or run.

The Washington Times has for some time been consciously transforming itself from a conservative alternative into a political-reporting powerhouse, and Lake says that the paper’s conservative associations didn’t seem to affect his interactions with sources one way or the other. The Washington Times has for some time been consciously transforming itself from a conservative alternative into a political-reporting powerhouse, and Lake says that the paper’s conservative associations didn’t seem to affect his interactions with sources one way or the other. upside-down land here

There is a common thread running through President Obama’s pro-choice agenda: the coercion of those who disagree with it.

…Now, taxpayers are likely to fund not only research on the “spare” embryos from in vitro fertilization but also on human lives produced and ended for the sole purpose of scientific exploitation. Biotechnicians have been freed from the vulgar moralism of the masses, so they can operate according to the vulgar utilitarianism of their own social clique — the belief that some human lives can be planted, plucked and processed for the benefit of others.

Right, Michael. Except you’ve got it backwards. Those masses with their vulgar moralism don’t happen to believe what you just suggested they believe. How hard would it have been for you to actually look it up or speak honestly?

WhenCBS News first askedabout medical research using embryonic stem cells in 2004, 50 percent approved of the idea. Support for it has been on the rise since then with 56 percent approving in 2005 and 59 percent in 2006.

However, it should be noted that a recentGallup pollcomes at the question a different way — specifically asking about the issue of government-funded research. In a poll last month, 52 percent said they support fewer or no restrictions on federally-funded research and 41 percent they support keeping the same restrictions or not funding the research at all. Those figures were a dip from a 2007 Gallup poll in which 60 percent of Americans said they supported fewer or no restrictions on federally-funded research.